The High Court dismissed a writ petition contesting land acquisition and lack of rehabilitation. The bench held that entitlement to compensation was a disputed question of fact not amenable to writ jurisdiction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
OSWP+325
mss
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 325 OF 2010
MOHAMMAD YUSUF NAGORI .. PETITIONER Vs. THE BEST UNDERTAKING & ANR. .. RESPONDENTS
Mr. S. E. Kazi for the petitioners Ms. Geeta Shastri,AGP
CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & R. V. MORE, JJ.
DATED : 20/9/2010
P.C.
In short the case of the petitioner is that respondent 1 acquired the
land in question allegedly belonging to the petitioner’s grandfather, by giving notice to the people of the area for construction of a BEST Depot. The Depot was constructed but the petitioner’s grandfather as well as 75 persons of the area were not rehabilitated and no compensation was given to them It is stated in the petition that petitioner’s grandfather was in possession of a room at Kurla being Room No. 17, situated at Alidabad
2
OSWP+325
mss
Estate in Kurla area. The name of the petitioner’s grandfather is not given in the petition.
3
OSWP+325
mss
(SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.)
(R. V. MORE, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation or rehabilitation for land acquired by the respondent.
Mohammad Yusuf Nagori
The Best Undertaking
Ranjana Desai
R. V. More
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
